About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide assistance to pakistan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. rohrabacher: mr. chairman, again i rise in support of my amendment which stake states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to pakistan. pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of dollars. we've given them $18 billion just since 9/11. not to mention the many billions of dollars we gave them during the cold war. what is all that spending achieved for the people of the united states? pakistan is now the best friend to america's worst enemies. radical islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent china. wake up, america. was anyone really surprised to find osama bin laden was living in a luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated pakistani city? let me admit that i was even surprised that the pakistani government was so bold, so openly in contempt of the people of the united states as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to justice osama bin
pakistan a strong message >> the pakistani relationship is difficult but it must be made to work overtime. but until we get through these difficulties, we will hold back some of the many that the american taxpayers have committed to give. >> some $800 million? >> yep. >> it's a lot of cash but is it a political move. our next guest called out the pakistani government in 2006 claiming they knew osama bin laden in's location. peter thompson joins me. he's the author of the new book "the wars of afghanistan." good to see you. >> thank you. >> i want to get your thoughts we reported that the half-brother of huh mean karzai in afghanistan has been assassinated. how does that affect the relationships? >> he was assassinated by the taliban. this reflects assistmatic policy of the taliban and their isi handlers, the intelligence organization is i think behind this as well. and also al-qaeda. this policy is a tool to eliminate real and potential enemies of the islamists they want to reimplant back in cob he will. >> so this is a blow to the u.s. in afghanistan? >> yes, and also the destabilization
is happening with pakistan. there are questions about whether or not pakistan is really our friend or our foe. the second thing about foreign policy experience, you do not have to have had extensive foreign policy experience to know how to listen to the experts. president obama just announced his withdrawal plan from afghanistan. he didn't listen to general petraeus. he didn't listen to admiral mullen. they have again on record as saying it was more aggressive than they thought. common sense says, you don't reduce your force by a third and announce it to your enemy in order to fulfill some political promise. what kind of foreign experience do you need to listen to your experts in order to be able to make the right decision? >> sean: you came under fire early in the campaign. i never saw you mad before. you got sick and tired of answering the question about muslims in your administration. >> yes. >> sean: a reporter asked you again and you off on him a little. tell us your real position and what happened? >> throughout my business career i've always hired the best people, irrespective of race,
of the israeli-pakistan commitment. an overhaul of the flood insurance program. live house coverage here at 2:00 here on c-span. >> this weekend on book tv on c-span2 is everything you know about the yoke corral wrong? jeff given tells a different story about wyatt erp and the gang. charles hill looks at the long war of islamism against the international state system. also in manana forever, jose castaneda talks about the problems facing our southern neighbor. and sign up for booktv alert, weekend schedules in your inbox. >> earlier today the number two command for the after gap stan said president obama's troop withdrawal plan doesn't pose significant risk to the counterinsurgency strategy. lieutenant counselor david rodriguez says he doesn't expect violence in afghanistan to start decreasing until next year. from the pentagon earlier today, this is 45 minutes. >> general rodriguez, it's counselor dave lapin at the pentagon. if you're ready to go, i'll introduce you and we'll get started. >> ok, dave, go ahead, thanks. >> thank you. good morning to those here, good evening in afghanistan. i'
signal nato weakness, implications in places like syria and egypt and have implications like pakistan, as well. a lot rides on this more than just getting rid of khadafy, who yet again in past days has called for a return to terrorism something he used before and is threatening again. one more reason to get rid of him. >> gregg: last question -- there is a new study by the eisenhower research project and it concluded that u.s. involvement in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq has cost up to 4 trillion dollars over the past decade. your reaction to that? >> i think that study is badly flawed for a number of reasons. it's counting costs we would have incurred anyway for the existence of the military. it does focus on the potential explosion of medical costs. that is something i think even defenders of the defense department have said for some time that is an area of cost cutting we ought to be looking at. badly flawed but there are points worth taking into account going forward. >> gregg: unless anyone thinks we forgets, more than 6,000 american lives in various wars over the past decade, h
sightedness of it gets us in more trouble than anything else. pertaining to pakistan, having grown up there in the earlier years of my life, and it cannot tell you the immense good will that was there for the americans in the 1980's when we were fighting the soviets and freedom fighters of that time. the day the soviets left, the very next day everyone packed up their bags and left. that region was left with the master deal with on its own. come 9/11, all of a sudden they want that place to be fixed. well, no one was there for 13-14 years. we need to have a longer-term view. if we do not do that, there is no way we can solve our problems. thank you and i will listen offline. host: that may be a way to look at the broader question before we wrap up, but the remainder of the middle east long term. guest: this gets to the issue we spoke about earlier about whether the u.s. is going to support the democratic process in the future. i think the caller is right certainly in the case of pakistan and afghanistan. the united states lost sight of the importance of the region after the soviet the
into the gulf of oman, towards pakistan. it is very important. these two monarchies have done everything possible to crush any sign or effort of reform or agitation for reform. in the case of the saudi arabia, there were quite successful in doing this. some of the liberal saudis tried to have a so-called day of raids on march 11. -- a so-called day of rage on march 11. exactly one person showed up in riyadh. that person was swamped by journalists. but 17,000 people had signed up on the facebook page to come out and participate in the day of rage. some shiites in the eastern province show that the day before and had their demonstration. but, basically, the saudis have been able to mobilize not only the threat of security forces cracking down on anybody who demonstrates, the got the religious establishment making any kind of demonstrations religiously forbidden. they put pressure on families to keep their kids at home. and they succeeded. in the case of bahrain, it was much more messy, and you have a shiite majority there of 70% may become a 65% to 75%. and they were on their way to probab
interference. we have laws to be obeyed. >> unless it comes from the pakistan isi. >> thank you for this example. >> we have money going to the ngo's who have rejected it. >> registered. >> according to our laws. we have an organization here in the united states helping egypt to manage elections. we're giving some money to the justice and interior ministers. they are welcomed. mr. sweeney is all over egypt. it is a matter of sovereignty, to have some money from abroad [unintelligible] not egypt only can accept that. >> i would ask two more questions and then we will turn it over to steve. you mentioned that you and your colleagues are ready to go back to your professional jobs as military men. eager. >> that is correct. >> since 1952 the egyptian military has played a fairly prominent role in egyptian life. you cannot say that it has only played a military role but it has played a military and political role since 1952. and right now you're playing one of your most important roles in your history. if the project works, new parliament, new president, and we are on a new track tow
stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened before. we're optimistic and can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan. number
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)